IFL 3.07 illegal instruction

[D.V. Ant]

I have an old P2-300 with 128MB RAM that I use for my BootIt BM DOS/Win98/Win2k setup. I tried using Image for Linux 3.07 no-network CUI CD-ROM to do a backup of the internal drive to a USB hard disk. It gets about 10MB or so done, and then exits out with "illegal instruction". IFL 2.89 works.

At some point in the development cycle, were the compiler switches changed to a newer architecture and the code no longer supports a processor this old? Or is it the newer Linux kernel that's included in the boot media? What would be the most recent version I could use, and would Image for DOS be affected by this as well? I need to get a PS/2 keyboard as the USB detection hangs USB one right now, so I can't test it.

[TeraByte Support(PP)]

According to the manuals, both require a Pentium 4 or higher. You might try IFL 2.99, which still has a v3.x kernel (IFL 3.x+ uses a v4.x kernel).

IFD should still run on it. For the USB keyboard issue you could try hiding the USB controller using the USBIgnoreMask INI file option. Note that if it only has one controller that it would also prevent you from using your USB drive. Does BIBM see the USB drive? If it doesn't, then IFD probably wouldn't either.

[D.V. Ant]

IFL 2.99 seems to work fine. Thanks!

This system only has a single USB controller, which is being shared between the keyboard and external HDD that I'm backing up to. So as soon as IFD has to scan for USB, it does see the drive, but then the KB stops working. IFD was my first choice due to its convenient installation with BIBM.

[Bob Coleman]

D.V. Ant wrote:
> IFD was my first choice due to its convenient installation with BIBM.

I get torn in two directions here. I sometimes feel the same, but IFL almost always performs the operation in less time, probably even factoring in the increased boot time.

[mjnelson99]

I frequently use IFL instead of IFW.I like the choice.
Mary

On 6/2/2017 1:11 PM, Bob Coleman wrote:
> D.V. Ant wrote:
>> IFD was my first choice due to its convenient installation with BIBM.
>
> I get torn in two directions here. I sometimes feel the same, but IFL almost always performs the operation in less time, probably even factoring in the increased boot time.
>
>

[DrTeeth]

On Fri, 2 Jun 2017 11:11:03 PDT, just as I was about to take a herb,
Bob Coleman disturbed my reverie and wrote:

>I get torn in two directions here. I sometimes feel the same, but IFL almost always performs the operation in less time, probably even factoring in the increased boot time.

IfL is about 5 times faster than IfD. I wish even a cut-down version
of IfL was available as an option in BIBM.
--
Cheers,

DrT

"If you want to find out what is wrong
with democracy, spend five minutes with
the average voter." - Winston Churchill